Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151747 Feb 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Some examples, please.
<quoted text>
The objection involves ethics that are completely unrelated to the person in question. Many men don't find abortion to be immoral even though an abortion is not an action they will ever commit. Their position cannot possibly be based on selfishness or their own 'sins'. Many heterosexuals do not find homosexuality to be immoral even though they will never engage in homosexuality. They are never confronted by these implications in any way.
You have still not provided us with the mechanism by which sin infects people or any mechanism by which we can detect it.
You have not been able to explain why morality is so different among cultures. Are non-Christian people simply inherently BAD? All those Hindus who go pray at their temple KNOW they are doing something evil but choose to do so anyway?
Your stance is absurd and unevidenced.
Additionally, your disingenuous "argument" can be used by ANY OTHER opposing moral system.
True morality is eating nothing but corn. If you eat anything else, you are sinning. And you know you're sinning. If you disagree that eating other things is a sin, that's just the sin talking.
I am still not sure, why you would be even capable of talking about absolute moral positions like "sin".

The Bible clearly teaches that sin is inherited.

As to your point about a man condoning sin, not being a sinner, you might want to address that.

Men condoning sin are guilty of the sin they condone.

A man cheering on the murder of another man by a third party is just as guilty.

But if you had the courage of your convictions, you would first have the courage to show the basis for your absolute moral claims.

Why are you hiding that?

Obvious really.

It is just another technique to suppress the truth.

You will not discuss it, because you know where it goes.

It is this suppression of truth, that proves my point.

You cannot and will not account for your use of absolute morality.

Therefore, you have no right or basis to condemn anyone elses position.

Put up or shut up as they say...

:-)

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#151748 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So the law of non-contradiction is not a human invention after all...
How do you account for its existence?
It simply, is.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151749 Feb 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to give any position on morality to show that yours is flawed.
Stop trying to change the subject. Your moral system is self-contradictory. Deal with it.
Yes you do.

To state any moral position is flawed requires you to substantiate your standard of judgement.

To refuse to do so is to admit the inability to do so.

I can critique your morality because I can account for absolute morality.

You cannot, so should not critique anothers position.

Until you can justify your own position, all you are doing is behaving in an arbitrary manner.

And we both know that is illogical.

By refusing to account for your own standard of absolute morality, you prove you cannot.

Put up or shut up...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151750 Feb 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
It simply, is.
I understand you have assumed it.

But you have not accounted for it.

You are simply making arbitrary appeals to "all knowledge".

Which of course is illogical...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151751 Feb 4, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not logical at all. Science must practice methodological naturalism or it is useless.
<quoted text>
Where did I try to account for it?
You didn't account for it, that is my point.

You keep assuming it...

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#151752 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Sin is the virus.
The proof of that is that atheists sin...
Ever considered that?
You want to blame religion of sin, yet you sin and deny all religion.
How do you explain that inconsistency in your argument?
According to every religious person who has ever lived, EVERY human sins, religious or not.

How do you explain that inconsistency in your argument?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#151753 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
As an atheist, how can you account for sanity?
After all, two chemical accidents fizzing differently are just two different chemical accidents fizzing differently.
How then does your fizz decide my fizz is not fizzing right?
Because your fizz has clearly fizzled.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#151754 Feb 4, 2013
First you just show a god exists before you can assign properties an assumptions to him. Your god encourages rape, incest, slavery, genocide, putting every infant to the sword and torturing people forever for imaginary crimes.

This is your standard of morality? Sorry but secular morality is by far superior.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God exists, all the worldviews that try to suppress that truth, are quickly reduced to logical absurdity.
Again, you refuse to account for the absolute standards of morality you appeal to...

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#151755 Feb 4, 2013
According to your god, yes.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So slavery and rape is okay as long as it benefits the majority of the society that approves it?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#151756 Feb 4, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism under the ideology of communism is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths.
zzzzzzzzz

Still trying to sell the lame idea that Communists killed in the name of atheism? So sad....

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#151757 Feb 4, 2013
I see you licked your wounds and returned only to ignore and dodge questions and puke out Eric Hovind and William Lane Craig lines.

An original thought from you would be nice drone.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you care?
You are an atheist, slavery and rape are perfectly acceptable in your worldview, as long as society comes to a consensus on the matter.
So I am not sure, why you would want to critique something you actually do not have a problem with as an atheist.
Of course you can reject atheism if you want, and turn to God, who is calling for your very soul, and then discuss with Him the issues you believe need to be dealt with in scripture.
But if you continue in atheism, you have no basis upon which to profess moral outrage on these issues...

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#151758 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all.
God is the First Cause.
All of science must therefore logically be subject to Him.
God first.
Science second.
How's life in the Dark Ages treating you?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151759 Feb 4, 2013
And this is the point with atheism.

It cannot account for the transcendent laws that it uses.

It also denies the laws it uses.

Revealing the simple fact of the controversy that rages in the human heart.

That God has revealed Himself to all men, through the transcendent laws of logic, uniformity and morality.

Yet they suppress that truth, so that they are not accountable to the owner of truth.

That suppression can be clearly seen by the contradictory appeal and denial of those laws by the atheist, as they squirm to avoid the unavoidable.

They then become reduced to absurdity, in their denial of those most basic of transcendental laws, that denial being required if they are to avoid God, and thus proving the very point they seek to avoid...

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#151760 Feb 4, 2013
Circular reason logical fallacy.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Without God you cannot account for logic.
Using logic reveals your need of relying upon Him, whilst suppressing the truth of Him and His relationship to you as your Creator.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#151761 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as sin?
Really?
Really.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151762 Feb 4, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
According to every religious person who has ever lived, EVERY human sins, religious or not.
How do you explain that inconsistency in your argument?
You do not have the right to discuss sin until you can account for it...

Until you can do that, you are just merely expressing an arbitrary opinion, which has no rational justification.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151763 Feb 4, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
According to every religious person who has ever lived, EVERY human sins, religious or not.
How do you explain that inconsistency in your argument?
What inconsistency?

The Bible plainly teaches we are all born sinful by nature.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151764 Feb 4, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Because your fizz has clearly fizzled.
What makes your fizz a better fizz?

According to your worldview, we are just both fizzing.

So your arguing with me here is absolutely purposeless.

The only way to be consistent with your atheism, if you were a true atheist, is to admit that all fizzing is relative and therefore no fizzing is right or wrong.

That is of course if you were really true to your convictions...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#151765 Feb 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
First you just show a god exists before you can assign properties an assumptions to him. Your god encourages rape, incest, slavery, genocide, putting every infant to the sword and torturing people forever for imaginary crimes.
This is your standard of morality? Sorry but secular morality is by far superior.
<quoted text>
God doesn't exist and He isn't very nice?

I hope you can see the illogical nature of your argument.

Which is little more than a suppression of the truth.

The sin in you, controls you, so that you cannot even reason clearly and logically and see the absurdity of your argument.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#151766 Feb 4, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
You are making an absolute truth claim here, that everything needs to be created.
You can only make that if you absolutely know all truth.
Upon what basis do you make that absolute truth claim?
Is it your own arbitrary opinion?
Actually, I was pointing out that your "absolute" claims are absolutely nonsense because you say "there are absolutes" then hypocritically ignore those same absolutes when applied to your god. If what you claim is absolute, then your god would also be accountable to abide by the very same things you claim anything else is accountable to, including your morals.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 46 min woodtick57 2,612
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Morse 1,455
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 1 hr Morse 15
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr fadu singh 23,258
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 2 hr thetruth 6
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 2 hr thetruth 168
God' existence 16 hr polymath257 84
More from around the web